Shabbat 28a — the Talmud in English

It is written here,

in the passage concerning the impurity of a tent over a corpse:

“This is the Torah: when a person dies in a tent.”

And it is written there,

concerning the erection of the Tabernacle:

“And he spread the tent over the Tabernacle.”

Just as there,

in the Tabernacle, it was

of linen,

for there was no other kind that comes from a tree in it except linen [as it is written: “fine twined linen.” And “fine linen” means linen], and it is

called a tent, so too here

with regard to the impurity of tents, only a tent

of linen

which alone is

called a tent becomes impure.

And we object:

If just as there,

in the Tabernacle, the threads were

twisted

from several threads together,

and

there was

a doubled thread

twisted from

six

threads together,

so too here

with regard to the impurity of a tent, shall we say that we require the threads to be

twisted, and the thread

to be

doubled sixfold?

The verse teaches:

It is written in the passage concerning the red cow:

“Tent—

tent”

several times.

It included

in the written text for the impurity of a tent even a tent whose threads are not twisted and which are not doubled sixfold.

And we object:

If “tent, tent” included

even every matter as well,

let us include it, and even a tent that is not of linen should become susceptible to impurity!?

And we answer:

If so, the gezerah shavah

of “tent, tent” from the Tabernacle—

what use would it have?

And again we object:

But say: just as there,

in the Tabernacle, the tent was made of

boards, so too here

with regard to impurity from a corpse, even a tent made of

boards

of wood should become impure? [And see Tosafot, s.v. “If”]

And we answer:

The verse says: “And you shall make boards for the

Tabernacle.”

And the verse comes to teach you:

Specifically a

Tabernacle,

such as the ten curtains concerning which it is said, “And you shall make the Tabernacle ten curtains”—

is called a Tabernacle,

and a Tabernacle is called a tent, as it is written, “the Tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting.”

But boards are not called a Tabernacle

[and therefore the wording of the verse is “boards for the Tabernacle,” and it does not say, “And you shall make the boards of the Tabernacle”].

And again we object:

But from now,

that wherever it is written, “and you shall make for,” it is not like the thing for which it is made: in the matter of the upper covering for the Tabernacle, [Exodus 26:14],

“And you shall make a covering for the tent.”

Shall

so too

we say that a

covering

for a tent made of skin

is not called a tent,

and will not become impure with the impurity of tents?

And should you say that indeed this is so, it is not possible.

For:

Rather, this is what Rabbi Eleazar asked:

A tent made of

the skin of an impure animal—

is it possible that it becomes impure

the tent itself

with

the impurity

of a tent over a corpse?

What is he asking?

But Rabbi Eleazar derives above the impurity of a tent from the Tabernacle. And if so,

now, the skin of a pure animal,

used for the work of the Tabernacle, such as the skins of reddened rams, which are pure animals, you said

does not become impure

with the impurity of a tent, since it is not called a tent—

the skin of an impure animal,

which is not fit for the work of the Tabernacle,

is it necessary to ask

whether it should not become impure with the impurity of a tent!?

And we answer: In truth, wherever it is written, “and you shall make for” [as with “and you shall make a covering for the tent”], it indeed is not subject to the law of the thing for which it is made, and from this verse by itself we should have excluded even the skin of a pure animal from the impurity of a tent.

Rather,

there it is different,

with regard to the covering of the pure animal’s skin mentioned in the Tabernacle,

for it returned—

the verse returned to mention it,

and revealed to us that it is called a tent.

As it is written: “And they shall carry the curtains of the Tabernacle and the Tent of Meeting,

its covering, and the covering of the tachash that is upon it.”

[In the Tabernacle there were three coverings: ten curtains made of fine twined linen, and above them eleven curtains of goats’ hair, and an upper covering of tachash skin].

It compares

the

upper

covering of tachash

to

the

lower

covering of the goats’ curtains:

just as

the lower covering

is called a tent,

as it is written: [Exodus 26:7], “And you shall make curtains of goats’ hair for a tent over the Tabernacle,” to spread them over the lower curtains—which were called a Tabernacle—

so too

the

upper

covering of tachash skin

is called a tent.

And here the verse revealed to us that the skin of a pure animal is considered a tent. However, with regard to an impure animal, Rabbi Eleazar is uncertain whether skin is considered a tent.

The body of the matter: Rabbi Eleazar asked: skin

of

an impure animal—

is it possible that it becomes impure with the impurity of tents?

And we examined it:

But what is he asking?

Rabbi Eleazar derived the impurity of a tent in the case of skin only because of the comparison with the Tabernacle, and there the covering was specifically made from the skin of a pure animal.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

It is the matter itself:

the tachash that existed in the days of Moses—

this is what he is asking:

Was the species

impure, or

was the species

pure?

Rav Yosef said: What is Rabbi Eleazar asking?

for Rabbi Eleazar?

But

we learned

in a beraita:

Only the skin of a pure animal was fit for sacred work.

And from here you can resolve that the tachash was a pure species.

Rabbi Abba challenged

the words of Rav Yosef:

It is written: “And you shall make a covering for the tent of reddened ram skins, and a covering of tachash skins above,” and the Sages disagreed about this:

Rabbi Judah says: There were two coverings. One

was of reddened ram skins, and one was of tachash skins.

Rabbi Nehemiah says: There was one covering.

And

it was

resembling the kind of

animal called

tela ilan.

And Rabbi Abba objects:

But tela ilan

is a species

that is impure!?

And how did you say that only a pure animal was fit for sacred work?

And we answer:

This is what he is saying: It was like tela ilan,

in that

it had

[in its skin]

many colors. But it was not

tela ilan

itself.

For there,

the species was

impure, whereas here

the species was

pure.

Rav Yosef said,

in support of his words:

If so,

meaning that it was not tela ilan itself but resembled tela ilan in its many colors,

this is why we translate

“tachash” as

sasgona.

That is,

the

tachash

rejoices,

rejoicing in its beauty,

with many colors

that it has.

Rava said: That the skin of an impure animal becomes impure with the impurity of a tent over a corpse—

from here,

we derive it from the impurity of skin lesions.

As it was taught:

It is written in the passage concerning skin lesions [Leviticus 13:49], “on a garment or on skin,” and it could have written “or

skin.”

What is

“or on skin”?

The verse included

also

the skin of an impure animal

for the impurity of skin lesions.

And

we also include lesions of garments in a case

that arose,

where the garment became afflicted with a lesion only after the garment had already been

in the hand of a priest.

For even if it initially had no lesion, and the lesion appeared only when he showed it in the priest’s hand, the garment is likewise impure with the impurity of skin lesions.

[And the reason that it was necessary to include this is because it is written: “And the garment, when there is a lesion in it—and he shall show it to the priest,” which seemingly indicates that if it did not have a lesion before he showed it to the priest, it is pure. Tosafot].

If he cut off from all of them,

from all the types of garments mentioned in the verse,

and made

a piece

from one of them—

from where

do we know that the garment becomes impure with the impurity of skin lesions?

The verse teaches:

[Leviticus 13:48]

“Or in any work of skin.”

And since we include the skin of an impure animal for the impurity of skin lesions, the same law applies to the impurity of a tent.

And we reject this:

But there is room to refute: What is distinctive about lesions,

which have a stringency,

for

a thread made for weaving the

warp and

likewise a thread made for weaving the

woof—

becomes impure through them

even before the thread has been woven into a garment. This is not so with the impurity of a corpse, for below [64a] we derive from the verse, “a garment of skin,” that specifically a garment becomes impure through them, but not warp or woof threads.

Rather, he derived

the impurity of a tent in the case of the skin of an impure animal

from

the impurity of

creeping animals.

As it was taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the impurity of creeping animals [Leviticus 11:32], “or a garment or skin.”

And this is how we expound it:

“Skin.”

I have

only that it becomes impure with the impurity of a creeping animal

only skin

of

a pure animal.

Skin

of

an impure animal—

from where

does it become impure with the impurity of a creeping animal?

The verse teaches: “Or skin.”

And from the superfluous “or” we include the skin of an impure animal for the impurity of a creeping animal, and from here we learn it for the impurity of a tent.

But there is room to refute: What is distinctive about creeping animals, for

they have a special stringency, in that they

make impure with

a small amount, the size of

a lentil.

Can you say this with regard to a corpse, which makes impure only with an amount the size of an olive?

Skin lesions prove it,

for they make impure with an amount the size of a gris [which is less than an olive], and the skin of an impure animal is impure through them.

And the argument returns: This one is not like that one, and that one is not

like this one.

For each of them has a stringent aspect: a creeping animal makes impure with the size of a lentil, and with skin lesions even a warp or woof thread becomes impure through them.

The common aspect between them,

with the impurity of a creeping animal and with the impurity of skin lesions: First,

that skin becomes impure through them.

Second,

and the verse made

the skin

of an impure animal like

the law of

the skin of a pure animal.

I will likewise include a tent over a corpse—first,

that

skin becomes impure through it. Second,

and that

and through it the skin of an impure animal is made like

the law of

the skin of a pure animal.

Rava of Barnish said to Rav Ashi:

Still,

there is room to refute: What is distinctive about the common aspect between them,

with creeping animals and skin lesions,

for

they have a stringency, in that they

become impure with less than the size of an olive—can you say this with regard to a corpse, which becomes impure only with the size of an olive!?